http://realestate.yahoo.com/promo/demand-spikes-for-zero-energy-cost-homes.html

Quote :

"A rising trend of super-efficient, solar-powered new homes allows homeowners to combat rising energy costs by giving back to the power grid. Some owners are even realizing a small profit from their home's power-generating capacity. Intelligent house layout and design, and home features such as dual-pane windows, air-tight duct work and high-caliber wall and attic insulation are curbing energy consumption. And when coupled with solar energy, captured through photovoltaic panels, these homes are becoming their own mini power plants that feed electricity to the grid. In 2009, U.S. homeowners paid an average $2,200 for energy use in their homes, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. A growing number of homeowners have the opportunity to zero-out that cost. "It's too good to believe," said Dave Spencer of his net-zero-energy home in Gainesville, Fla. Last month, his energy bill was $2.01 -- and that was just because of service fees -- after receiving over $10 in credit for energy his home generated. Both semiretired, Spencer and his wife, Sandy, moved into the 1,752-square-foot home last October and have not paid for any energy yet, he said. Sounds too good to be true? A recent Yahoo! Real Estate study found that 50 percent of 1,545 U.S. adults polled said being green is a requirement of their dream home. The Spencer's new home is part of a niche, though growing, segment of the U.S. housing market -- net-zero-energy homes, many of which use solar energy to achieve net-zero-energy use vs. consumption. In the sun-sparse days of winter, energy consumption often exceeds generation, but in the sunny days of summer, energy generation often far exceeds consumption. As of February 2012, 37 homes have been rated net-zero-energy or better on the industry-standard Home Energy Rating System e-scale of the U.S.-standard auditor. This number could grow 1,000 percent or more in 2012 if projects continue as planned. "Interest has been off the charts," said Todd Louis, vice-president of Tommy Williams Homes, the Florida-based building company that built the Spencers' home. So far, the company has built and sold four, and has plans to build 35 to 40 more in 2012. The price of their net-zero-energy homes are still $30,000 to $40,000 higher than those that are not net-zero-energy, said Williams, but that margin is dropping with a decline in photovoltaic costs. The Spencers paid $250,000 for their home. Shea Homes, a large builder in the West, announced last month that it plans to make net-zero energy or near-net-zero energy homes the standard model for new homes in all 10 of its retirement communities in Nevada, Florida, Washington, California and Arizona. If interest in the communities mirrors last year's level, that could mean 500 to 600 solar-paneled, high-efficiency homes, 80 percent of which will be net-zero energy, said a Shea Homes spokesperson. (To achieve net-zero-energy, solar-power-enhanced homes have to be on lots that allow a certain amount of sun exposure.) Don Asay bought one of the new Shea Homes, which feature blown-in cellulose wall insulation, dual-pane windows, a 20-amp outlet for an electric car in the garage, and solar panels, when he heard about the solar deal. He was already looking at a house in a Las Vegas-area 55-plus community built by Shea Homes. High-caliber insulation, like attic-coating foam, are among the technologies that make homes energy efficient. Shea Homes has long featured extremely energy-efficient designs, though the upgrade to solar panels could be costly -- around $30,000, said Asay. He and his wife were considering the upgrade, but when the announcement was made that the new net-zero homes, with solar, were only $7,000 more than the previous base model, they jumped: "Sign us up." Nexus EnergyHomes, in the Northeast, has already built hundreds of single-family net-zero homes in Philadelphia's museum district, in South Carolina and Maryland, and has plans for hundreds more, including a net-zero energy exclusive, 59-home subdivision in Frederick, Md. The market is listening. Residential green construction has skyrocketed from 2 percent of new homes in 2005 to 17 percent of new homes in 2011, according to a McGraw Hill Market survey report. The same report found that 61 percent of customers are willing to pay more for homes that are energy-efficient and have other green features. "The paradigm of construction is changing," said Phil Fairey, director of the Florida Solar Energy Center, an important partner in the recent growth of the net-zero energy home movement. "Now, greater efficiency doesn't cost you more," he said. And the cost of solar energy, he added, has dropped 50 percent over the last two to three years -- from about $8 per watt to $4 per watt. "It's not a huge trend yet," said green homebuilding consultant Carl Seville, "but it's growing slow and steady." Right now, there are pockets of demand like Austin, Texas and the West Coast, he said, but the movement is slowly spreading. It's not so much that homes are generating so much more energy with photovoltaics, said Seville, but rather that builders are becoming more savvy about home design and energy efficiency. A well-designed, well-built home without energy generation can get pretty close to net-zero energy efficiency, he said, and energy generation takes it over the top."

DO WANT.

3/5/2012 6:32:57 PM

So, 15 year pay back? Just in time to replace the PV panels.

3/5/2012 7:13:55 PM

and as the REC market continues to fall apart, the payback becomes non-existant.

3/5/2012 7:33:57 PM

Solar cells are cool and all but they are way too expensive/inefficient for widestream use. One bad hail storm or tornado could cost you five time as much to repair a roof.

3/6/2012 9:17:44 AM

My brother in law just installed enough solar cells on his home in Arizona to generate a significant amount of electricity. He is just short of net zero. I think the cost, before tax credits, was about 15k. After tax credits, it was about $7500. He said with Arizona power rates (he pays upwards of 33 cents per kwH at times), it will pay for itself in 5 years.

3/6/2012 9:28:45 AM

Most of the country does not have those events happen with enough regularity for it to be a concern.

3/6/2012 9:31:06 AM

I was able to convert my house into a zero energy cost home by connecting to my neighbor's power main.

3/6/2012 9:44:01 AM

^^^ where the in Arizona is he living that he is paying 33 cents per kwH?

I like the idea of this, but I think the reality is that the payback is too long for most people based on the average electricity rates and average uses for homeowners I would imagine. Even at $7500 cost to me, my payback would be >10 years in the house I'm in now if electricity rates stayed relatively stable.

3/6/2012 10:10:32 AM

Yeah, 33 cents sounds crazy high.

http://205.254.135.7/electricity/state/

3/6/2012 11:11:57 AM

even if that is his actual rate it is a pretty extreme outlier case.

3/6/2012 11:36:24 AM

$.06/kWh is the what most businesses spend on power.

And unless you get a 15 year warranty on a solar panel i wouldn't say this system would EVER pay for it's self.

Replacing the panels is one thing... but you'll need to replace a battery bank etc much more frequently then that. And solar panels themselves are only batteries that require the sun to work. Its an irreversible destructive chemical process that produces the power.

P.V. sucks... i would go solar water heater or solar boiler/steam generator... but until that becomes small enough to be functional in a residential setting solar can go suck it.

Get a wind-turbine if you want something that will EVER pay for it's self and doesn't result in tossed poison panels at the end of it's live cycle.

3/6/2012 11:41:57 AM

PV systems interconnected with the grid shouldn't have battery systems; some utility service structures prevent you from interconnecting battery systems with the grid at this time because they don't want people gaming TOU rates.

I don't know where you get $0.06/kWh for a commercial rate from; average commercial rates are over $0.10/kWh now. If you meant large industrial customers, then they're closer to $0.07/kWh, but they also get hit with high facilities charges, demand interval charges, TOU structured rates that charge them more for electricity used during peaks, and interconnection charges if they run their backup generation in parallel for maintenance and peak shaving. Solar makes more sense for industrial customers because they can peak shave, limit demand charges, get a reduction of installation labor costs due to the scale they work at, and make full use of the tax incentives.

Have you ever looked at the payback on small-scale wind? The REC market for wind is non-existant compared to solar, so the payback models are abysmal. I got quoted $1 a REC on wind recently, meaning a 1kW wind turbine could run nonstop all month, generate $0.72 from RECs, and then cost me $4 that month for the second meter surcharge. At least solar RECS are still in the $80-100 range and should be for the next couple of years before they fall again.

3/6/2012 12:54:57 PM

i know from recent energy audits that two major coorps have a campus wide flat rate of .06/kw.

It may be aggressive because well the nature of the businesses may allow the power company a tax break for the discounted rate.

3/6/2012 1:13:15 PM

^^it seems you have a pretty good knowledge of this stuff... is solar ever going to make sense in a distributed sense? (people with PV solar shingles, etc)

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 1:16 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2012 1:16:15 PM

solar will be fine; we just don't want to create a bubble like Germany and Spain did. Solar costs keep dropping similar to Moore's law, so we'll cross a point in a few years when solar by itself is cheaper than grid power and will pay for itself without tax credits and REC markets.

I'm not a big proponent of PV in it's current form, but it's at least heading in the right direction and makes sense for peak shaving.

3/6/2012 3:21:20 PM

Most people don't even stay in homes long enough to see a payback on installing them.

3/6/2012 3:29:29 PM

More like "absurdly expensive energy cost" homes.

3/6/2012 4:05:09 PM

Quote :

"Most people don't even stay in homes long enough to see a payback on installing them."

That's the problem with shitty residential construction techniques that are standard in US. The whole wood-frame model is a throw-away approach to construction. But that's beyond the point. The real payback of net-zero energy houses is the reduction of the demand for energy from non-renewable sources. And it's not just the PV cells or wind power that makes this possible, but design and construction techniques, along with high quality materials, that prevent energy loss.

3/6/2012 4:54:22 PM

I don't see it as anything more than a dumb marketing scam in the making, just like LEED turned out to be for the commercial/industrial construction sector.

3/6/2012 10:29:53 PM

^ did you read Igors post?

3/7/2012 1:59:01 AM

Quote :

"The real payback of net-zero energy houses is the reduction of the demand for energy from non-renewable sources"

I completely agree; however, it will never be widespread among homeowners until it has a payback that makes sense to them on a personal, financial level.

3/7/2012 7:48:38 AM

^^my post was directed at Igor's post. This is the same stupid shit LEED was hyped up to be in the commercial/industrial sector. Unfortunately, it never made economic sense and gave credit for all the wrong things.

3/7/2012 9:30:27 AM

Is this assuming that every house is stocked with 0 calorie soda?

3/12/2012 4:41:35 PM